Pages

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Foundation Garments and Body Image, Revisited

I must have been a very good little blogger last year, because Santa sure brought me a lot of fabulous presents! One of my favorites is the book Underwear: Fashion in Detailfrom the V&A. It's amazing. Seriously, it's a goldmine of information and pretty pictures. I would recommend it for anyone interested in fashion history, and especially those of us fascinated by the development of foundation garments over time.

There's a quote in the introduction that has provided me with food for thought for days. While discussing the way the ideal body shape has changed at whim throughout fashion history, author Eleri Lynn writes:

"It is only since the 1960s that women have been expected to embody the fashionable ideal by way of diet and exercise and without the aid of foundation garments."

The reason this idea struck me so much is that as feminists, it's very easy to equate restrictive foundation garments with gender oppression—to the point that many now think of girdles as anti-feminist. In fact, every time I've written about my fascination with retro lingerie—particularly of the New Look variety—at least one commenter has asked me how I reconcile this enthusiasm with my feminist ideals. So the quote above is rather compelling in that it's probably the first time I've seen the decline of foundation garments interpreted as having an adverse effect on women.

Historically, it's easy to see how there's some sense in this. We currently worship the ideal of the perfect body obtained through diet and exercise, yet we still seem to be coming up short. Indeed, the decades since the 1960s (when traditional foundation garments fell out of favor) have been particularly bleak in terms of our relationship with food and exercise, seeing a massive rise in cases of eating disorders and poor body image in general. Is it possible that there's a direct connection between this crisis and the fact that women have traded their girdles for the gym?

I'm sure it's not quite that simple. But I do think there's something to be said for the idea that fashion is really about a quickly-changing silhouette; it seems we swing back and forth between ideals like Kate Moss or Christina Hendricks fast enough to give one whiplash. If you rely on an article of clothing to help you achieve this silhouette, you're probably bound to be happier than if you're futilely trying to change your very body shape through punishing crash diets and exercise routines (not to mention plastic surgery), right? Plus there seems to be a moral judgment on the use of body shapers now; there's a somewhat commonly held belief that Spanx are for people who haven't been hitting the gym hard enough.

But on the downside, any restrictive garment is just that: restrictive. And not being required to wear these garments on a daily basis has, arguably, improved our the quality of our lives in many other ways.

What do you think? We've certainly gone 'round and 'round on this topic before, but I so love the way the quote above frames the issue that I just had to write about it again. Whatever your opinion, it's certainly an interesting discussion for this time of year, with the deluge of "New Year, New You" get-thin-quick offers! (I'm so sick of those already, aren't you?)

58 comments:

I have no problem with restrictive garments as long as I'm not forced to wear them. I have two overbust corsets which I love but I certainly don't wear them daily. I think that you should wear what you want to wear and what makes you feel good.

My daughter has an exquisite hourglass figure, weighing in at 108 and five feet tall. She is the most liberated woman I know but she swears by her Spanks. It takes care of the "skin goop" left from the gestation of twins and that makes her feel good. So what they hay?

I do think the idea of how we have switched the girdle for a gym is quite interesting. Have we really? Obesity, the unhealthy kind, is rampant. I would bet in the 50's a much higher percentage of women wore girdles than currently go to the gym. Not sure this was a great trade off when I look at the big picture.

IMO, to get dressed and look good you use whatever tools you can get in the toolbox. Come to think of it, I could probably use a bullet bra right now and it would be a heck of a lot more comfortable than underwires :)

Gertie, you astound me sometimes at how your thinking seems to echo what's going through my head. After diving into the realm of long-line bras paired with control top [whatevers], I thought "wow, you know, this makes a huge difference".

I have been going to the gym and eating healthier, I'm down 25 pounds, which was my goal for last year. But this was to get the weight off after having had back surgery and physical therapy. It means I'm in a lot less pain. Still, I will never be a thin woman and finally in my mid-thirties I've come to terms with this.

From the frying pan into the fire... food for thought and a very interesting point. After years at the gym, I'm increasingly moving towards girdles and long-line bras to keep it all in place. Yes, they can be a little physically restrictive at times, but for the confidence boost they give me, it's a small price to pay. And when I wear them, I stand and sit up straighter, which surely must be better for my posture in the long run. Where the trailblazers of the 20th century threw out corsets and bras for the cause, we've moved on now and for the most of us, we are in the enviable position that we can wear such underwear if we choose to. It is now a matter of personal choice, which should not be dictated upon by others (including those old-school feminists whose sensibilities they offend).

That's really fascinating! If you think about it, diet and exercise have really only become options (or even necessities) in recent history for most women. It wasn't too long ago that hours of manual labor and subsistence diets were facts of life for 98% of the world's population -- even in the richest countries!

As for the people who try to turn my unmentionables into a political litmus test: ppfffffffffffftttttt.

I thought the whole point of feminism was choice. I remember when 'respectable' women didn't go out without a full complement of highly structured underwear. Then we weren't 'supposed' to wear underwear at all. I think if you just do what you damn well please, that's plenty liberated enough for me.

fWIW-anytime I hear what I 'should' be wearing, doing, looking like, I run for the hills.

I'm torn in these types of discussions. Part of me is disgusted by the whole idea of women caring so much about how they look and dress, and investing too much time and money in it, whilst elsewhere in the world many women spend all their time worrying about how to feed their families or escape violence. Why does so much of our gratification and confidence come from something so superficial?

On the other hand, there's this part of me that wants to go out and buy some foundation garments so I'll look better in that dress and feel better about myself... so what is that part of me? Is it innate? Or is it the environment that I live in?

This is not a comment on yourself Gertie or your readers, but more an open question regarding my nature and the nature of women...

There are lots of benefits from exercise. For me, it reduces arthritis symptoms and improves my mood and energy level. I'm building up the bone in my hips and back, which is worth the effort. Keeping my weight down also has health benefits. I'm not, however, expecting to have a trim waist in this (post menopausal) lifetime, so shapewear would be my only hope there! I don't really think this is an 'either/or' issue.

This is a very timely post in my mind. I just purchased and wore my first pair of 'spanx' for a New Years party. It felt like such a big deal on the purchase date because in my mind wearing a restrictive undergarment is like an admission that there is something 'wrong' with my body. Even though I am healthy and in shape.But once the spanx were on, the amazing vintage dress I bought (which was just a smidgen to small for me) fit like a dream.I ended up feeling much more comfortable and confidant than I would have without it.I've never really cared what other people wore, but personally I've never been a big fan of constricting under garments because my feminist side tells me that they are 'the man trying to keep me down'. But I am quickly moving into the 'wear whatever the eff I want' realm.

Interesting post! However, I hope you don't mind if I state that I didn't interpret that passage in the way you have interpreted it. The author (in my reading) isn't suggesting that prior to 1960 women's bodies (and lives) weren't subjected to the same regimes of self-alteration and issues with body image and so forth that modern women have to deal with. What seems to be emphasized here is the fact that prior to 1960 women turned to foundation garments to alter their bodies to fit the ideal of feminine beauty of the time while modern women employ the "technologies" of the gym and dieting to do so (so, women in the Victorian period used whalebone and iron girding to get the Gibson Girl figure, while modern women get "abs of steel"--in essence turning their own bodies into the foundation garment). There is no question in my mind that women who subjected themselves to tight lacing to get the most enviably small figure in town could be seen as akin to the woman who goes to extremes in dieting and exercise (not for health and wellbeing, but to attain a social ideal) is doing a similar thing, just using her own body and mind as internal weapons of torture.

I am of the mind that as long as my husband finds me attractive it doesn't matter to me what my body looks like. Flab and all.

I do however try to exercise because it makes me feel better and more energetic which I need with three small children and I do wear underthings that smooth my flab when I go out in public just because I like to look nice when I go out. If I need shape ware then I use it.

I don't worry about the images given off by the media because I know that isn't me and I will never be that way. I am happy with what I look like. It took a long time to get there. I just gave up because I am to lazy to make the effort in trying to be that thin.

Oh sorry, I ran out of room there. I guess I saw the author's statement as a neutral whereas you suggest her point is that the "decline of foundation garments [has had] an adverse effect on women." Where does the author state that? I read her point as being that women have always been subjected to (and subjected themselves to) regimes in an effort to match society's unrealistic (and usually unhealthy) ideals of female beauty. Pre-1960s use external devices (corsets etc) to alter their figures; contemporary women use workouts (and plastic surgery)

I guess also I don't see where the author is implying that there is "any connection between a massive rise in cases of eating disorders and poor body image in general and the fact that women have traded their girdles for the gym." Maybe there was an adjacent passage that gave you the sense that the author was putting a less-than-neutral spin on what she sees as this historical-cultural shift from external foundation garments to internalization of such garments via women now getting "hard bodies" through exercise?

For me, exercise is something I do to take care of myself on the inside (reducing anxiety, depression, etc.)and not so much to enhance my superficial beauty. It's funny to me how so many women are hyper-focused on the superficial benefits of exercise (especially right now), and don't acknowledge the psychological benefits. Everyone has a different take on this, but I feel that if we all took better care of ourselves inside and out, maybe things like the size of our waist wouldn't be so important in the grand scheme of things? I agree with Valerie that I do not like anyone telling me what I should be wearing. I guess that's why I avoid most fashion trends like the plague :)

Thank you for this post. That quotation is terrific. It's something I've been thinking about for awhile and I was trying to explain to a friend a couple of weeks ago.There seems to be this general view out there that we are more liberated because we are no longer expected to wear corsets or girdles to conform to an ideal shape: no more compressing our ribs to get a 13 inch waist, no more fainting because we just can't get air into our squeezed lungs. Yay! But we haven't actually gotten rid of the pressure to look a certain way. It's just that now we are expected to actually alter our bodies, whether through lifestyle choices or surgery, to get the IN shape.

I don't think this should necessarily lead to a mass call for a return to foundation garments for all, I think it just serves as a reminder that the "end of the girdle" was perhaps not as liberating as we thought. We may have gotten rid of the overt means used to pressure us to look a certain way but we haven't gotten rid of the concept of the "ideal" body shape that we are supposed to strive for. That's where the oppression is, not in the physical garments but in the reason we have them.

I agree that women have always had a shape to aspire to that is simply not feasible for the majority to maintain naturally, so what was once the result of underwear is now achieved by going to the gym and doing endless sit-ups. Feminism is, to my mind, the choice to take one of those options, or both, or neither. It's fine to want to look slim and take steps to that end (undies or treadmill) and just as fine to say bollocks to all of it.

Really interesting post! I have recently ventured into the realm of foundation garments and love them. I've found that they make me stand taller and make me more conscious of my body and how I carry myself. Oddly enough, it was also just enough of a boost to get me to change my eating habits for the better and drop a few pounds.

As for the feminist aspect, I am a woman doing what I want with my body. That makes me a feminist. I don't wear shapewear to impress anyone or because of some restrictive fashion requirements (in fact, I dress vintage and don't follow current fashion trends at all.) I wear it because it makes me feel comfortable in my skin and helps me to fit into the clothing I love.

Gertie, you really must read Joan Jacobs Brumberg! I swear, you'll love her. I agree with BaronessVonVintage that the internal devices that we use today (diet and exercise) can be thought of as essentially equivalent to the external devices (corsets) used pre 1960s.

JJB points this out in her books as well, but the other point that she makes that is more interesting, I think, is that in the 19thC the moral worth of a woman was about spirituality (her character, purity, contributions to charity projects) whereas today the moral worth of a woman is judged by her body. The phrase "taking care of yourself" that we often use to talk about diet, exercise, grooming, etc shows how we give moral value to appearance. If you don't "take care of yourself" by maintaining your weight, doing your hair, etc, then you must have low self esteem or be lazy or not be able to keep yourself from pigging out on doughnuts. JJB calls this "the body project" -- women work on their bodies as a way of showing that they are good people who care about themselves, have self restraint, are hard working, etc.

I love sewing dresses and (god help my wallet) buying french lingerie, but I really try to remind myself that I'm working on "the sewing project" or "the work image project" and NOT "the body project." Sewing lets me make clothes that make me feel more comfortable in my body because they don't pinch or hang in weird places; it lets my body be. I also try to remind myself that I don't have to sew/wear clothes that make me look skinny, and that I don't have to "look good" everyday. I don't want to start feeling weird without makeup or bras, I want to be able to see those things as hobbies and costumes, essentially, and not part of "me."

Even though women wore restrictive undergarments before 1960, obesity wasn't such an issue because there were less fast food places, no internet to sit in front of ( not to mention video games), tv was less popular... people actually moved around more back then. Today's population sits behind desks, in front of tv's, or in cars... our food is saturated with stuff like hormones,saturated fats, msg, salt & other stuff that you would have to be a chemist to understand. I'll bet the Amish don't have overweight ppl!! I personally don't think I could live to that extreme but it is food for thought....Magazines, tv & movies are only fuel for the fire when they brainwash our society into thinking you have to be bone thin with a big bust and taller than 5'5" to be worthy of the public eye.....how sad & there is not much anybody can do about it...We can, however, control what we eat and how much we sit! :)

We as women are constantly setting ourselves diametrically opposed goals and ideals, this is only one of them.I've come to accept that we cannot function in society without this conflict of our own making. I'm just thankful I don't live in sub-Saharan Africa where the conflict would be early marriage and child-bearing and FGM. And while I am continually looking down on my midriff with loathing and trying to reduce it, I forget that it holds in my internal organs and bore me two children. I really should cut it some slack and focus on the bigger picture. But I 'm a woman and conflict is my M.O.

That body image (for both genders!) is a social creation which changes can be traced through history seems to me as a given. The means by which one is encouraged to achieve this ideal body has also changed over time. Corsets, make-up, hair-dos, the cut of a garment, it all changes how our bodies appear to shaped.

I think maybe the growth (and today maybe even need) of gyms since the 60s has more to do with how we use our bodies and what we eat than it has to do with throwing away the corsets. Of course, with diets and gym there's a line between working out to improve one's health and working out to change one's body into an impossible ideal.

For me it's really not a question of corsets vs gym & diet, but a question of trying to sort out the notions society has given me and see if it's something I really want to embrace. Only in the light of that can I decide if I want to wear shapewear or not, and the answer is yes, but maybe not daily. Work out a couple of times a week (right now only tedious physical therapy though) and wear shapewear when I feel like it. A perfect combination for me =)

On the one hand, I find something a bit healthier about some foundation garments in that I may wear one to, say, help with the line of a certain dress. But unlike the extreme diet/exercise/surgery pushed by a lot of media, I don't feel like it's the same sort of judgment that my body is 'wrong.' Because it's not about permanent alteration, it's about temporary changes.

On the other I get tripped up on the idea of 'false advertising.' I wear a padded bra because honestly, my dresses fit better with a little extra help. But I find myself caught up in what's sold in magazines--that it's somehow dishonest if I don't look the same naked as one would expect from seeing me clothed, that I'm lying to those who see me.

I think the contemporary pressure to conform to a body ideal is compounded by the fact that today we are supposed to look flawless AND effortless. In decades past it seems that women were given more latitude to reveal the amount of effort that went into their physical upkeep. Foundation garments, unabashedly obvious makeup, weekly trips to the beauty salon for complicated hairstyles, etc. Now we have to look perfect AND look like we aren't even trying. I'll take my waist cincher over a lifetime at the gym, thanks.

P.S. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Spanx make me feel like a sweaty sausage. Classic foundation garments make me feel foxy. Why hide in the bathroom to peel out of Spanx before naked time when I can wear something foxy that my naked-time partner appreciates!

What an interesting topic! I never considered that analogy before, corsets to gym, and I think it's pretty spot on. I'm 21 and in college, so my undergarment collection is not to exciting, but I have recently been interested in old fashioned underoos. Maybe not corsets, but definitely garters (not the kind for show, the kind that actually holds my hose up!), slips, and long line bras. I think I like the idea of having dressed under your clothes. It's like a stylish little secret!

I don't think that obesity is the reason we care about the gym more. I do think that without shaping garments, the only way for a woman to reach the current body ideal is to try to work her body into that shape. In the 1950s I don't think obesity was a problem like it is today because it is related to the rise of processed food as the only option for some lower income people, as well as the convenience of technology, at least in part.

I think the main thing is that a person should not be willing to injure herself for the ideal. A corset should not be damaging her organs, hitting the gym shouldn't be interfering with the rest of her life, and dieting shouldn't be starving just to get rid of pounds.

I love your "feminist" posts!I would have to consider myself a feminist as well - even though there's a rack of pageant tiaras on the wall over there (with my boyfriends' plaques from Airborne Special Forces... ).Even though I've worn the girdles and corsets and fake fanny and "water bras", I've always seen them as enhancements to my natural figure - which has always been larger and curvier - rather than hiding what is there. It's like the New Look padding and nipping. In certain dresses, I needed some "junkenzetrunken" for a lovely fit.I always figured, "how much can I really hide with girdles? After all, they don't make FACE corsets!"... And the joke among my friends is that "I collect chins".I find that I may be rare in competition, as I have always had a healthy body image. What is not healthy, however, is my body.6 years ago, I broke my back while playing Roller Derby (a Roller Derby pageant queen? The story gets stranger every day!) and have since been plagued with chronic pain and limited motion. Since then I've gained weight, lost muscle tone, and have started having hormonal problems. Fashionably, I could take care of that with any of the foundation garments in my closet but foundation garments WON'T reduce my risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, and early death. Today I still play dress-up, but as a WW2 WASP reenactor. I'm at the top end for a pilot and would keel over dead if I tried to do their daily exercises. Sure, I can fit the reproduction uniforms and I don't look completely ridiculous in a parachute, but I wouldn't be able to pilot a bomber.It's a delicate balance.

Restrictive undergarments make me feel shame, as though I have something to hide. However, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, as I'm painfully aware that my body "as is" does not meet acceptable norms. No matter how much I insist (by going "as is") that I am beautiful, that this is what some women look like, that women are beautiful as they are -- it's just not true in our culture. It's darn near delusional to insist. I'm of the camp that does wish my sisters wouldn't collude in setting the bar so high by hiding their actual features and their pain. But I understand why they do, and I'm for anything that makes women feel attractive and confident.

Interesting post. I can't wait to get that book- it's been on my wish list since I knew it was going to be released. Love these books!

There's always been a body ideal of the times, of course. Personally I actually think it's ridiculous to think we can obtain the "ideal" modern shape by simply using diet and exercise. Or that the ideal shape just being "skinny". I think society has a lot to say about what the ideal figure is, but the individual's idea of beauty is shaped by their perception of beauty. For example- when growing up I was fascinated by the Victorian and Edwardian eras, and the 1950s- since I grew up watching a lot of classic films. I also grew up skinny. Since I wasn't hourglass I thought of my body shape as unattractive. So I guess being a modern woman and having ideals of previous eras as a basis of beauty, but using modern techniques is kind of sticking yourself between a rock and a hard place. There's extremes in both modern techniques of beauty and historical ones, but at least we understand health much more than our Victorian ancestors.

Actually, I think that feminists have long realized that a physical ideal that requires the woman to have a perfect body solely through exercise and diet is not empowering. At least in the past, one could manipulate one's silhouette to a certain extent.

I support (so to speak), foundation garments that provide control, dignity, and are comfortable to wear, especially once one is out of one's 20s.

In the wonderful film "Topsy-Turvy," which is set in the 19th Century and is about the making of "The Mikado," a star tenor complains that he won't be allowed to wear his corset (it will change the look of his kimono costume). He argues that requiring him to appear on stage that way is indecent.

I have thought this too - I was reading some fashion advice from early in the 20th century about how to keep your hands ladylike, and I was thinking how the best way to show that you're in the leisure class today is not to get a manicure but rather to have a very toned tricep. A manicure can be purchased - a toned tricep requires daily effort.

A person can only do so much with what her ancestors and God gave her at birth. I was born with an hourglass figure into the era of Twiggy and child-models. It isn't possible for me to change my basic shape into that fashion ideal. I'm just not made that way.

I choose to keep my basic shape as small and toned as I can make it by working out daily, vigorously. I get high from it; I have more energy; I'm easier to live with; I'm happier.

I have always been fascinated with foundation garments (before i knew this is what they were called!), and i am so glad to see this book and this quote. I do believe that we have it worse now, not because the expectations are higher or more unrealistic, but because we are expected to look a certain way without any help. our clothing has gotten more sparse and see through and the emphasis is on seeing thinness through your clothes, the abs, breasts etc through your t-shirt.

back when you could wear a girdle or corset or something else to help, at least you had a shot, and if you didn't look "perfect" you had some help faking it.

now you are on your own and every flaw is glaringly obvious and i think that this leaves us always feeling sub-par.

now without a doubt i would dismantle the unrealistic expectations first, but i long for the day when i can make my own corsets and foundation garments that will allow me to play around with how i look and feel, and maybe make some that are comfy (like your post on the long line bra)

Oddly enough, I wore my very first pair of control knickers today. Half way through the day I had to sneak into the loo and whip them off, they were unbearable!! Reading your article got me thinking (aargh!) about what lead me to wear these things in the first place; and therin, I think, lies the answer. (Or one possible answer at least). Perhaps neither foundation garments nor diet and excercise are particularly oppressive in themselves. Perhaps it’s what motivates us to use either of them in the first place that’s the real issue. Putting the health issues aside and focussing on the aesthetic, body image; throughout history and to this day, people have used corsetry and physical regime to sculpt themselves much as an artist would do. If the motivation is creative then that can be a very beautiful thing indeed. If the motivation is destructive (one of self loathing and dissatisfaction) then that, I think, is a real issue. As a UK 14 I’m pretty average, but I feel huge. I wish, as a liberated, feisty and free thinking woman I could say otherwise. So I wore those knickers, not to create something beautiful, but to hide something ugly. Because deep down I was ashamed of how my body looks. (Anyway, they’re in the bin now!!!)Great blog as ever.Miss Pxxx

There are certainly positives and negatives to both sides of the argument, but I would stray closer to the opinion of Eleri Lynn on this one.

When shaping undergarments were considered normal, so was your body. Now you are often considered abnormal or wrong for any 'imperfections'. But none of us are perfect and we can't have each generation born with the exact body type that will be in vogue for them.

Not only has there been a rise in body image related illnesses, but there has been a rise in obesity. Obviously, the food that is marketed has a good deal to do with that, too, but I feel like maybe the higher we raise our standards on our bodies, the more we fall short of it.

I think corsets are totally hot. Forget the politics and looking for what it says about society and all that, they are hot. It would be different if i felt societal pressures that required me to, but at least the way things are now it's not an issue.

Foundation garments may be physically physically but the real oppression is the expectation behind both shape wear and diet and exercise regimes that women are supposed to look a certain way. Or perhaps, even more fundamentally, that it matters what women look like. We may have traded one method of living up to the standard for another, and everyone probably has their own opinion on which is worse, but neither is the problem in itself. And this is why one might be able to reconcile shape wear with feminism: because its not the underwear (or the diet) itself that is bad but the pressure one feels to look a certain way (or to care about how one looks at all).

I agree with Baroness Von Vintage way up there that extreme body modification is much older than the 1960's, but I do think that the decades since the 1960's have idealized a body type that is far less easily "created" by means of clothing. You can fake curvy or bosomy but you can't fake rail-thin, which has basically been the ideal since the late 1960's (except possibly during the 1980's when clothes were so huge and padded). I can stuff my bra, tighten my girdle, and pad my backside to create an hourglass, but there's nothing I can do to create narrow hips and skinny thighs where I have a broad pelvis and meaty legs. (I'm not even overweight. This isn't a weight issue with me; it's a proportion issue.)

It's a lot easier to feel badly about the body you have when it's impossible to disguise how far it is from the ideal. I feel much better about myself in a big 1950's skirt that hides my extremely-unfashionable pear shape than I would trying to conform to the current skinny-jeans ideal, which would be embarrassing and uncomfortable. I may look less liberated in my June Cleaver gear but I'm so not.

Learning to sew and being able to make clothes that actually fit me--and I happen to have a build that lends itself naturally to "unliberated" 1940's and 1950's styles--has allowed me to stop fighting with my clothes, with the whole concept of clothes, and in large part with my body image. I don't know if I think about clothes more now or not, but I definitely think about them positively far more than I used to. I used to think about clothes a lot largely because I dreaded getting dressed in the morning, knowing that nothing fit that well, would be that comfortable, or would look that good on me.

I'm not kidding: Basic sewing skills changed my life. For the better.

I think looking and feeling good is a basic human thing. People have been ornamenting themselves and clothes, it seems, for pretty much as long as archaeology can tell us anything about what they wore. Remember the Ice Man they found in the Alps in the early 1990's? He was wearing a black-and-white striped fur vest.

I continue to believe that feminism means choice. I don't want to be forced to wear certain clothes, but if I choose to wear a corset and long skirt, it's nobody else's business.

Thanks for a fantastic book recommendation. As a feminist myself, i think men and women have equal rights of making sure ones look and feel great. If that involves dieting and exercising or wearing girdles, so be it. I am lucky enough to have a constant shape and weight but If i have to choose, I would go with wearing girdles because I love to eat.

I've been familiar with the contents of that quote for a few years. And, although I think we should be careful is classifing these things as cause and effect, I agree with it and with your statements about foundation wear.

I would even like to add to it: almost always, 19th century feminism and the reform movement, which appeared around the same time, are seen as connected and part of the same change. It seems to make sense, based on the same retstrictive clothes = restricted life principle. However, in the book 'Fashion and Fetishism', which makes a study of corsetry, not just as foundation wear but more as a social and cultural phenomenon, writer David Kunzle shows that these were separate developments. In fact, there were even tightlacing suffragettes. The equation between foundation wear and gender based oppression doesn't seem to have been made until the 1960's. And apperently even then, the 'bra-burning' stories were highly exaggerated in the public's mind (maybe stirred up like that by male imagination?)

All I want to say is: no one should feel forced to embrace a certain opinion about foundation wear, based on feminist ideals. And if you're interested in the topic, add the book I mentioned to your 'to read'-list

Having read all the comments I can't resist adding a thought: Some of the comments here expresses the idea that today's beauty ideals are harder to live up to because it can't be helped by external devices (such as corsets). But if one leaves the corsets and look to other fields, there has always been beauty ideals that could only be reached by what nature gave you. One example is fine teeth and skin in regency England (early 19th c, expressed among other places in Jane Austens novels), long before dental care and specialized skin-care products. Or big eyes. A specific hair-colour/eye-colour. Etc...

My point is that while not closing our eyes to current problems with self-image, eating disorder and such, maybe we should take a step back and appreciate the very many possibilities we nowadays have to look how we want, and more importantly our many choices for our health. While the fight for equal rights are far from over, I don't think it a sin to also enjoy where we are today. And maybe just recognize that the ideal beauty has always been near impossible to embody.

Ooo, I think you hit the nail on the head with regards to the morality of "fitness". There is a great deal of pressure on people (not just women) to hit the gym or pay the consequences...including derision from complete strangers. I find it interesting that people's "health habits" have become such a focal point for a morality debate, perhaps taking away from issues such as honesty, integrity, etc.

I just wanted to add that most of the diets we have today e.g. Atkins and calorie counting date almost unchanged from between 1900 and 1930:)The 'reducing' diet was an obsession in the 20s and 30s.You wanted no hips and no boobs for the twenties and slim from the ribs down with slim limbs in the thirties.Since I have been cleaning my house the old way(scrubbing on my knees)I think I might have found one way to fit vintage clothes...man that is hard work.

For each his or her own. I think that as long as peeps do whatever the heck pleases them, fine. At least when it comes to undies or lack of them. Yet there always is the paradox- so many people are really peeved of how other people receive them. When in reality, they might be pissed to find out how very little anybody obsesses over them.

Personally, I sometimes wear foundation garments, usually don´t. Every woman I know wear foundation garments of sorts every now and then. We talk about them very liberately, and there´s no taboo. It´s just as usual as wearing a cardigan.

When it comes to working out- it´s only reasonable. I´m a true believer when it comes to us humans being in harmony, both mind and body being healthy.Crash diets are never a good option either, but I doubt it´s always that black and white. Either a foundation garment or crash dieting and arduous workouts...OTOH, I´ve lost a lot of cm´s / inches over the past 4-5 months, just because I found several new food allergies and removed them entirely from my diet. I do admit that I now wear a lot less shapewear than I used to. Then again, I fail to see how looking fine would un- liberate me anyhow...

I think beautiful underwear is a pleasure no matter how yo look at it. Just this morning I sewed two bra-tops and two thongs for the hell of it. Because I wanted to.

I am late to this commenting party, but I thought I'd add something anyway.I don't think that choices exist in a vacuum. I've heard in many contexts that feminism "is about choice," but this misconstrues the fact that the very choices that we are offered exist within a larger structure of capitalism, patriarchy, classism, racism, etc. I will never argue that someone's decision to wear foundation garments are not feminist or something they should or should not do, but rather these decisions should be made with a clear recognition of how certain choices contribute to larger social phenomenon. For example, I think it's great to wear things that boost one's self esteem, but what does this communicate to young girls? How can we teach self esteem to our daughter/nieces/female children in our lives that are not based on physical appearance alone but also on academic, moral, athletic, artistic (etc.) accomplishments? Perhaps one solution would be greater transparency. Women could be more open with other women about the efforts they go through to attain their figures- whether a no sugar diet with Pilates or undergarments and a great tailor. I don't think this issue is any different than other cosmetic choices- such as make up or high heels. There are definitely social benefits to make changes to one's appearance to fit societal norms, but we should be aware of what these decisions mean.

Thanks so much for posting that quotation and your thoughts. I think this is a fantastic place to start a new direction for this conversation. The idea that so much of the body image issue has developed from a general inability to as easily conform a body to the ideal image, replacing a foundation garment such as a girdle which does the work for you with exercise which produces completely unpredictable visible results. It totally makes sense to understand that women are frustrated emotionally and psychologically by their inability to naturally create something that was achieved with the help of undergarments before.

Furthermore, I have no problem as a feminist with the idea of Spanx or something similar as a way of smoothing out the lumps that are highlighted by this dress or that skirt. These kinds of undergarments, I feel, work with women's bodies and simply enhance it for a particular look.

The missing element of this conversation is often that even as ideals of a fashionable female silhouette swing back and forth so frequently, the constant is that they are still based on something that was created artificially rather than the reality of women's bodies. The truth about girdles and corsets is that they forced a woman's body to conform to their shape rather than enhancing her own. Back in the day, they would often permanently alter a woman's shape, forcing ribs and organs to rearrange themselves to fit within the allotted shape. The ideal was not congruent with the realty of most women's bodies and yet it became a universal ideal that we continue to pursue today.

I'm perfectly alright with a restrictive garment that works with my body, but if I have to mold my body to fit into a idealized version only achievable through the use of bone and wire and the altering of my actual body shape, then I'm denying the reality of what my body was created to look like, inside and out! The reality of my body is that I have a soft spot that pooches out on my stomach, my waist is beautiful but not so small that I could fit my hands around it, and no amount of sit-ups and crunches will give me perfectly flat abs and the ideal hourglass ratio, but I've struggled to learn what my body is and what it should be, and to love it as such. I've had to work very hard to uproot my understanding of attractive as one that not simply unrealistic but unreal.

We have to stop expecting ourselves to conform to something that doesn't really exist naturally and create a new ideal of feminine beauty that's actually based on feminine beauty.

Thanks so much for posting that quotation and your thoughts. I think this is a fantastic place to start a new direction for this conversation. The idea that so much of the body image issue has developed from a general inability to as easily conform a body to the ideal image, replacing a foundation garment such as a girdle which does the work for you with exercise which produces completely unpredictable visible results. It totally makes sense to understand that women are frustrated emotionally and psychologically by their inability to naturally create something that was achieved with the help of undergarments before.

Furthermore, I have no problem as a feminist with the idea of Spanx or something similar as a way of smoothing out the lumps that are highlighted by this dress or that skirt. These kinds of undergarments, I feel, work with women's bodies and simply enhance it for a particular look.

The missing element of this conversation is often that even as ideals of a fashionable female silhouette swing back and forth so frequently, the constant is that they are still based on something that was created artificially rather than the reality of women's bodies. The truth about girdles and corsets is that they forced a woman's body to conform to their shape rather than enhancing her own. Back in the day, they would often permanently alter a woman's shape, forcing ribs and organs to rearrange themselves to fit within the allotted shape. The ideal was not congruent with the realty of most women's bodies and yet it became a universal ideal that we continue to pursue today.

I'm perfectly alright with a restrictive garment that works with my body, but if I have to mold my body to fit into a idealized version only achievable through the use of bone and wire and the altering of my actual body shape, then I'm denying the reality of what my body was created to look like, inside and out! The reality of my body is that I have a soft spot that pooches out on my stomach, my waist is beautiful but not so small that I could fit my hands around it, and no amount of sit-ups and crunches will give me perfectly flat abs and the ideal hourglass ratio, but I've struggled to learn what my body is and what it should be, and to love it as such. I've had to work very hard to uproot my understanding of attractive as one that not simply unrealistic but unreal.

We have to stop expecting ourselves to conform to something that doesn't really exist naturally and create a new ideal of feminine beauty that's actually based on feminine beauty.

Your post touches on how the discontinued use of restrictive lingerie has hurt our society, but you don't actually give any examples of how it benefited women. I'm curious to know how it has improved our every day lives.